You were just attacking his character without backing it up? Do I not know what an ad hominem is? If that's the case, then that's embarrassing for me. Unless you're saying that your remark doesn't technically bash his character?
Yeah, you're off on what an ad hominem is. I would dispute that I attacked his character at all, but that doesn't matter: an ad hominem isn't an "attack on character", it's an argument that is predicated on an unrelated character attack.
My argument here is just that Zitron says things that are wrong all the time.
You could fairly rebut me by saying I didn't substantiate that argument. That's true! That doesn't make the argument fallacious; it just means it isn't facially dispositive.
And I agree that he says things that are wrong much of the time, but not all the time. I also don't like him enough to care, but I do care enough to bring it up when I see multiple random attacks.
You were just attacking his character without backing it up? Do I not know what an ad hominem is? If that's the case, then that's embarrassing for me. Unless you're saying that your remark doesn't technically bash his character?
Yeah, you're off on what an ad hominem is. I would dispute that I attacked his character at all, but that doesn't matter: an ad hominem isn't an "attack on character", it's an argument that is predicated on an unrelated character attack.
My argument here is just that Zitron says things that are wrong all the time.
You could fairly rebut me by saying I didn't substantiate that argument. That's true! That doesn't make the argument fallacious; it just means it isn't facially dispositive.
Ah, well then colour my face red.
And I agree that he says things that are wrong much of the time, but not all the time. I also don't like him enough to care, but I do care enough to bring it up when I see multiple random attacks.